Once again today, I'll be hosting an hour of "Special Election Year Coverage" for the good folks at L.A.'s Pacifica Radio affiliate, KPFK 90.7 FM, from 2p-3p PT this afternoon.

And, once again, we'll be looking less at the election "horse race" and much more at the "track conditions," with a special eye on the Supreme Court's unconstitutional support of polling place Photo ID restrictions such as the one that disenfranchised a bunch of 80 & 90 year-old nuns (along with many others) yesterday in Indiana.

P.S. After the show, I'll be a guest on Voice of the Voters w/ Mary Ann Gould at 4pm PT, and then on People Speak Radio w/ David Swanson at 5pm PT. So it'll be a full day of BradCasting today! Hope you'll tune in...

Post-Show Update: We had another very lively show on KPFK with Sec. Carnahan, and loads of callers. Here's the full archive (appx 55 mins) for MP3 download, or you can listen online right here...

Prices now slashed in The BRAD BLOG's Fund Drive! Please support our continuing coverage of your election system, as found nowhere else. Click here for a number of cool new collector's edition Premium products now available starting at just $5!

Brad,
The latest media myth is that Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos had no effect on the Indiana primary. Their argument is that the Clinton-Obama (53-47) share of the 10% Republican crossover vote is virtually the same as the (51-49) split in the total vote. This analysis will show that were it not for Operation Chaos, Obama would have definitely won Indiana and very possibly Texas. Well, at least one blogger gets it.

The media fails to recognize that since March 4, there have been two sets of Republican crossover voters. The first group consists of the 40-50% who were driven by Operation Chaos. The other consists of moderates who are strongly for Obama.

Final Exit poll data shows that since Operation Chaos began on March 4 in OH and TX, the percentage of Republican crossover voters has risen from 6% to 10%. The increase has been almost totally to Clinton's benefit.

Prior to March 4 (before Operation Chaos), 7 primaries allowed Republicans to participate. Obama won their vote by an average of 59-28%. He won all 7 primaries by an average 58-37% share.

Since Operation Chaos began on March 4, 5 primaries have been open to Republicans. Clinton won their vote by an average 57-41%. Obama won 2 of the 5 primaries (but should have won 4). He had an average 51-47% share in the 5 primaries.

Unfortunately the phrase "the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says" really is the gist of our Constitutional legal system:

“It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared. In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution.

(Yada Yada III). Yep, really can't get away from that ancient tribal concept of "who has the say".

In short, the shocking truth is that they cannot make 'unconstitutional' decisions.

They can and do make decisions we disagree with or agree with. Every day. But they are not unconstitutional decisions.

Our focus, therefore, needs to be on putting as few dorks on the court as possible. In the last decade we have let down and our constitution is becoming dorky as a consequence.

Yep face up, we have weaknesses in our system, and the neoCon fascists have been playing them like a fiddle. Even if our ideals and concepts of freedom are not waxing and waning.

I just finished listening to the 2hr Vote of Voters broadcast. Here is my review:

Excellent!!!!

Very well informed guests with excellent logical analysis and opinions.

The very form of government we live in is at stake. There is no longer any wiggle room. Either we(the grassroots) reclaim Congress, the Executive branch, the Media and Big business or solidly fall into a state of "soft" facism. I implore everyone who votes in Novemeber to vote against anyone in power unless they have strong ties to "grass roots" progressive ideals. No "pinching" the nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil, and nearly 30 years of voting that way had brought our country to its knees.

Use our last voice before it is lost. Either "We the People" exert our supremcy over government, or government will exert supremacy over us.

To think anything that the MSM, NWO, Neo-Cons or Corporatist push down our throats is in "our" interest is fool-hardy and self-destructive.

We not only need to be 100% certain our vote counts, but make sure we have representation that reflects "We the People". Support a Constitutional Amendment on the right to vote and support the elimination of a two-party system. Nothing in the Constitution or the framers intent indicate we must have only two parties. 300 million people in this country and only 2 representative parties? BS!

I was on the Democratic Underground the other day sticking up for Bev Harris.

Then I followed up with a few questions for Mark Lindeman. Unfortunately, the buggers deleted my post.

I didn't curse. I didn't flame. I just asked some basic questions. Maybe the ptb's didn't like the screenshot of Steven Hertzberg endorsing Matt Damschroder. Perhaps they didn't like the idea that some "non-profits" other than BBV might be the real problem. Only so many dots are allowed to be seen at the DU.

So you want to slam OTOH because he won't trust corporate controlled exit poll data???

Why are these people allowed to shout down those who are into hand counted paper ballots?

By the way, I never mentioned exit polls.

Posted by OnTheOtherHand:

So, when you propose to "ask" me whether I'm paid to promote electronic voting machines, I have to wonder why.

So Lindeman does all those "audits" for free? He's working with the Verified Voting Foundation and others who accept the electronic machines, but are saying they are working on getting paper receipts for those machines.

It seems to me that if you have come here to practice guilt by association (for people who aren't Bev Harris?), you should at least say who you are trying to associate me with.

He called me a Bev-bot. Democratic Underground had no right to delete my post. This guy along with VVF seem to be operating on tax-payer money. This evoking of authority has to stop. He is accountable to we the people, not the other way around.

Hey Dredd, I always found that kind of thing striking. Hitchens became a fascist while Arianna became the liberal.

I started out at Huffington Post. What appeared to be government trolls were all over the board. The worst possible abuse was heaped on Cindy Sheehan. A few of us stuck up for her, and I think even an Arianna blogger spoke out. There was the story of Peter Rost. He got fired because he outed one of Arianna's employees writing fake posts on his entries.

I could go on and on. I can't seem to find one message board that doesn't seem rigged.

p.s. Arianna's staff scrubbed the archives. The Randi Rhodes forum is back, but all the years of entries are gone. I asked about it, and then I was threatened to stop spamming. The ones who really spam are best buddies with this mod.

I screen shot all my posts, and I even sent a private message to Randi Rhodes asking for her help.

My last post today I linked to the Tony Krvaric story. It's not showing up.

Only just now getting a chance to catch my breath (a little). So several replies here at once:

Jen -

Must have been late in the show, with a bunch of callers already on hold that they knew I'd never be able to get to. As much as I tried. Yes, the answer was Hart InterCivic. You win my respect atleast. That's worth something, right?

TruthIsAll -

Devil's advocating here, and not that it really makes a diff, but couldn't it also be said (or speculated at, with the same guess work) that it was, in fact, the Photo ID law that denied enough voters the ability to vote for Obama?

Remember, while Limbaugh's Operation Chaos may be annoying, and ethically bankrupt, it's not actually illegal as far as I can tell. Whereas the Photo ID stuff, is unconstitutional! (Yes, Dredd, you're next)

Dredd -

I agree, and understand your point. And am eminently aware that if the SCOTUS says it's constitutional, then it is, by definition (of a sort) constitutional.

I, on the other hand, am of such extraordinary ego, that I believe I know they were wrong. Thus, I don't recognize their decision as constitutional, and believe it will, eventually, be overturned, as was Dred Scot, etc.

But I appreciate your point, and have been well aware of it, every time I call that law unconstitutional (which I believe it is, in case I haven't mentioned that lately.)

Floridiot -

:-) Glad you enjoyed. And thanks for listening. See ya at the concert.

Mr. Bill123 -

Thanks for the thoughts on Show #2 today. Will pass it on to the folks who dunnit. Wish I coulda stuck around for the second hour, but had to go do Show #3

Socrates -

Get the facts. And the facts will out. And remember, not everyone who might not want something posted is necessarily evil. Sometimes they are either a) wrong or b) have other considerations that you may not take into account. Or c) they're evil.

It's not so surprising that most people who call into talk radio already have their opinions formed for them by the corporate media and right wing radio.

I hear ya trying to get through to them, but the Hearne message is deeply entrenched into the public skulls now. I hear it everywhere myself. (Freud's nephew Bernays would be so proud of them I suppose)

What usually gives some people pause is when I tell them that 'it's the corporate media telling them to think that way', I more often than not get an agreement on that from them.

Judges hand down fines when lawyers argue an issue they know is inappropriate to argue. The proper term is not 'unconstitutional' it is 'not decided correctly'.

Slavery was never right but in the original constitution is was constitutional. And in Dred Scot, which you cited to, that was the issue.

And so the constitution was changed by the people. And it still is changed. Slavery is now unconstitutional.

The Indiana statute is a bad statute and should be unconstitutinal, but it is not and I certainly would not advise any lawyer to go before a judge and ask that it be ignored so you can win your case. That is sooooo bushie.

The thing to do is get non McCain type judges (he loves Scalia, Roberts, and the neoCons on the court). The thing to do is not support McCain and his ideology so you don't have to call a statute unconstitutional even if it legally is not.

We have to obey the laws we don't like but we have the right to try to change them legally. Calling it evil like McCain will keep fascism alive and well in Amurka.

Socrates #9

It is the memes dude, the memes ... I am finishing up a memetic editor ("Ideosphere") which uses a mySQL database or files or both to keep track of memes thru their various incarnations, morphs, and cycles.

It is like jogging for the mind, keeps me on my toes. Memetics is quite interesting.

I was debugging and using it to follow the "Kilroy was here" meme and it did the Hitchens / Ariana thing too.

In some minds it eventually represented US imperialism while in others it represented the US bringing democracy to others. Either way the meme propagated after starting out as a humble wharf inspector's personal inspection stamp of approval.

Hey Dredd, I guess how we neutralize scalia et al is by electing a dem for all those upcoming SCOTUS appointments. Now that we have 20/20 hiny site! Is that smart enough for ya Conyers? I sure hope the Constitutional amendment for voting integrity gets support from all our our Reps! Not a bad place to start that spring house cleaning.

Did The New York Times run a hit piece on a group of former generals working as television analysts? Or have the networks purposely ignored a major story that implicates them in Pentagon propaganda-pushing? ...

{Thanks BradBlog for letting those of us wary of astroturfing get this idea out to the public. I'll sincerely try to focus more on the actual election integrity issues or on specific blogposts when posting here.}

The Indiana statute is a bad statute and should be unconstitutinal, but it is not and I certainly would not advise any lawyer to go before a judge and ask that it be ignored so you can win your case. That is sooooo bushie.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I going before a judge when I make the argument that Indiana's law is unconstitutional. I needn't meet the same burden a lawyer may have to when arguing in court, nor do I need to curb the use of my language here in that regard.

The 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires equal protection for all. When some voters are given one burden for voting, and others are not, that is in direct violation of the Constitution. Thus, Indiana's law is unconstitutional in my legally non-binding opinion, as well as having been incorrectly decided by the Supremes, as you argued in yours.

A common myth is "I am not a lawyer so my speech can be incompetent". Hell, anyone's speech, like anyone else's can be incompetent even if one is "greater than a lawyer" and is instead a supah bloggah.

Hey, all mavericks and supporters can say anything they want to anytime. I hear the MSM say things every day. Talk is the only thing that is still cheap.

Who the hell would want to say what the law is without caring what the law is? Try neoCon bushies for starters.

But that is fanciful and can't be done and everyone knows it, including the nay sayers.

We can only say what we want the law to be, or what it should be, and to do anything else is soooo bushie. Ignoring the law is not an option, because no one is so above the law they can tell the Supreme Court what the law is. What a fucking joke from dream world.

One can say torture is legal, one can say Iraq had nuclear weapons, one can say the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional decision. But it would be bogus.

Anyone can McFeign all they want, but it distracts from the issues that will correct the problems. Because saying is not doing, and saying the wrong thing is lying. Ask preznit blush.

One can say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional but it is not, one can say any Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional but it is not.

So, who is McFeigning and who is not?

McFeign would put more of the same on board the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would change, as it always has constantly changed.

Because the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, not what anyone else says.

That is the point "straight talkin mavericks" are in denial about. The Constitution is constantly changing by decisions of the Supreme Court.

The hubris maverickness of bushiedom does not change that fact, it only exacerbates the problems bad judges have created.

And that is most certainly not good.

Those who want to change the constitution in a good way sure as hell won't ever back McFeign.

"These daze" is right ... you and I use that term to describe 9-11-01 to the present:

But hero-worship dies hard, which is why it took so long for me to see that the man who had been willing to take on his own party and redefine what it meant to be a "loyal Republican," who stood up for his beliefs in campaign finance reform and his opposition to unconscionable tax cuts and even more unconscionable torture, was no more.

It's why I described his fall as Shakespearean (and, speaking of the Bard, hearing the invective spewing from the McCain camp in response to my post, "thou doth protest too much, methinks" leaps to mind).

This isn't Mitt Romney we're talking about, folks --- a man for whom pandering and flip flopping fit like a perfectly tailored suit. This is John McCain, a man whose personal history, in the words of Newsweek in 2000, "makes the other presidential candidates look like pygmies" --- and who, at one time, before he held a fire sale on his principles (Everything Must Go!), was ennobled by that history and had the chance to become that rarest of things --- a real leader.

(Arianna at Huffpo, emphasis mine). The most interesting part is that McFeign is not the least aware of all this. "These daze" is a mental disease that I did not expect activists of the long time kind to come down with.

But never forget that any kind of power corrupts, and any kind of absolute power corrupts absolutely. One is corrupt when one cannot see the path that leads to the solution of the problem, but instead argues they are the path. Yep they self worship then infect others, even Arianna, with "hero worship".

Hillary is trying to change that with shero worship, but it is still these daze bullshit.

One antidote I have found is plenty of liquid, blogging, and smoke. ... stay cool and don't become a fool ... stay American!!!

Arianna is basically shallow. She's the limousine liberal the wingnuts like to talk about. Liberal is actually a dirty word because it implies policies of a fundamentally rightwing nature. Liberalism is about "reform."

A true progressive would have made that HuffPost Get the F&#% out of Iraq now 24/7. It wouldn't have hired bloggers like Greg Gutfeld, I can't remember their names- smernocish, tony fat something, and carole liealot. She had Dershowitz promoting torture. Arianna is bad news, imho.

Wilms has made a freeper-like attack on Brad on the DU entry for this post. It looked like a decent thread was developing until Wilms decided to show his freeper colours.

As filed in federal court on behalf of former employee William Singer, has been withdrawn following a decision by the Supreme Court that makes pursuing the case nearly impossible, according to the law firm who originally filed the complaint.